Hey I just wanna say, its super awesome that you're the admin of the AT wiki and it looks lovely and its always really interesting and clean! I'm not sure if you have any sway or even noticed it, but you really don't need to keep giving Jake the epithet of "finn's adoptive brother". I'm adopted and have siblings and they're "my siblings". seeing as finn doesn't struggle with any kind of familial identity issues and even considers Joshua more of a father than Martin, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to just keep refering to jake as Jake in Finn's bio.

also just fyi, thisi sn't a complaint and i'm not offended- I don't think anyone would be, its just a suggestion! Thanks for listening!

Exactly what they said, it's in the bio so people who look up the page won't get confused, for like example someone who's completely new to AT would find it weird how a human and a dog were born from two dog parents.

Just simply by looking at your page your history is amazing! Admin at 4 wikis and founder of 2 of them! Going deeper it is possible to see your past. Nearly 3,000 AT edits and nearly 7 and a half thousand edits overall!

I'm sure your story would an inspiration to all Wiki Founders, Crats, Admins, Mods and editors alike. Would you please share with us your story, from that first Thursday, late May 2009 (or earlier if you want) to today's events (A job as a design and UX manager?)

yeah you don't actually have to do this but please? (probably best to put it into a blogpost, but you already know that)

He's a special case. Yeah, in that case you would just go with whatever he's labeled as in the credits. If there's no way to tell which one is correct, just go with the newest one and redirect the other.

Except the following is stated in the Adventure Time: Manual of Style: "Though if a member of the staff makes a comment on how wrong a model sheet names a character, what the staff calls them will be used, e.g., Lemon Camel instead of Lemon Horse."

Kinda sounds to me like this is more a case of the admins simply having no desire to put the effort into renaming the various articles that will need to be renamed based on Muto's statement so that this Wiki can be as accurate as possible. Either that or none of you just want to admit that you were wrong, even if it means disregarding your own rules.

In my experience, that is not how most Wikis do things. They simply have a placeholder name until the character receives a proper name, and if they don't then oh well. The point of a Wiki should be to present information on its subject matter in the most accurate way possible, not to sate the OCD tendencies of the admins to the point where they are not only disregarding their own rules but they are also completely ignoring any input from the creators of said subject matter. I shouldn't be surprised though, I've seen countless Wiki's fall into the trap of its admins becoming so inwardly focused that they care little for the opinions of others, and this one does not seem to be any exception. No matter how you look at this, all of you are simply disregarding your own previously-established policies for the sake of convenience, even if it's at the cost of common sense.

Tavisource wrote:Why can't we just redirect Root Beer Guy (character) to Candy Person 28. Isn't that enough? I mean, we already have an episode named Root Beer Guy.

This isnt' just about him. The rules very clearly state that if a member of the staff says that a name other than that on the model sheet is a character's proper name, then that automatically overrides everything else. Adam Muto has literally just said that [i]all[/i] Candy Poeple are to go by their proper names first, and model sheet names second. If you don't want to follow your own rules, then you should probably just rewrite it.

There are already redirects in place for all of the candy people. We need to have a vote on it anyways, before doing anything. I think we should leave this topic alone after that. It's not even that important, to be honest. GiariaEvil Mani Mani21:44 Thu Jan 29

Grabbed this from the WordOfGod link you posted: "Note that a number of people reject the notion of Word of God, considering something to be canon only if it appeared in the original source material" That's where I stand. As a "God" of entertainment, myself, I know that my "words" are never necessarily canon unless it is included in the "source material". This has nothing to do with us not wanting to take effort. Renaming a page only takes a few seconds, but we chose not to. The only time we should resort to the "Word of God" is if the original source material contains insufficient information or mistakes.

Imagine there was a character named Jonathan Smith. However, he is known as John Smith 99% of the time. I think it would be safe to name his page Jonathan Smith and redirect John Smith to the page. Same goes with Candy Person and Root Beer Guy, respectively.

Hello there! Just needed to talk about a few things from the star wiki.

I noticed that you gave rollback rights to someone. While this person has made quite a few edits, a chunk of their edits came from adding multiples of the same video and constantly doing and undoing an minor edit on an article. Also, I know this person kept asking to be an admin, but they haven't been around very long. I feel like it was a bit too soon and the person shouldn't have been doing those things to pull up their edit count, but I understand if you want the person to be a rollback.

Maybe I'm just lost, but I think we need to figure out a system like the rules and how the wiki staff system will work. It'd be helpful for users and nice to have set rules in use.

Hey. Yeah. Rollback rights are reversible. It's more like a teaser to get users to contribute more, in a sense. I mean, if he/she doesn't do well with the rights, we'll just revoke it. Haha but to be honest, I didn't really look into the quality of his/her edits. That's my bad. However, it is true he/she has been here longer than most people. Apparently he/she created a new account.

Also, at some point, if it's okay with you, is it possible that I can be promoted to bureaucrat? I mean it in no way to take full power or undermine you as the founder of the wiki, but as I'm consistantly on the wiki, I'd be able to pay attention to people on the wiki and promote them if I feel there are roles that need filled (and I'm not thinking of trying to chose by myself; a system for the wiki members to decide on members is important once there's enough members).

I completely understand if this is turned down, but I just wanted to let you know. Thank you! :)

You're at 657 Main Space edits right now but I'll grant you the rights. Is there someone in particular you wanted to promote at this time? (Please not Crossover). I guess we've been trying to implement the voting system we put up on AT wiki, over here. Accordingly, you would require 2 crat votes to be allowed a promotion. Promotion to Admin require 2 admin votes as well as at least 10 regular votes and no more than 3-5 oppositions. Something like that, don't remember exactly.

We're not quite ready for another admin yet (ATG and I are a good amount for now until the wiki becomes larger), but both Dlrgirl75 and ImperfectXIII have been very diligent, commited, and hardworking on the wiki that I'd like to give them both rollback rights. Crossovers hasn't been on enough or done enough edits, so I wouldn't promote him.

That's a good idea for the promotion system. I'd say adding a limit to how many people can be promoted to a particular role would be good, too, so that there won't be so many people promoted. It's a small wiki right now, so it's better to grow slowly as more people come around. I'll ask others on the wiki for thoughts and figure out a set system.

Thank you so much for the promotion! I will be wise with what I do with it. :)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, really haha. Kinda ironic, since we run on wiki as well, haha. If that airdate is accurate, I'm pretty sure it came from somewhere (e.i TV guide, website, etc). Find the source and we're good.